Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
Virgil
Posts:
4,479
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Cantor's absurdity, once again, why not?
Posted:
Mar 14, 2013 6:12 PM
|
|
In article <QO-dnXX2D5CIp9_MnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote:
> On 3/14/2013 2:30 PM, WM wrote:
> >
> > It is so simple:
> >
> > Here it is again.
>
> It is not possible to advance to a logic
> of parts of individuals as individuals
> without the (correct, geometric) version
> of Leibniz' principle of the identity
> of indiscernibles interpreted with Cantor's
> intersection theorem pertaining to
> nested sequences of closed sets
> having vanishing diameter.
>
> It is not possible to "quantize" the
> tails of those infinite sequences with
> a general distinction between "closed"
> and "open" sets in a topology without
> being informed through the situation
> described above.
>
> Naming by virtue of definite description
> is an inherently infinitary process
> because of the epistemic nature of
> definition. So, any use of a singular
> term in any language act subject to
> the Fregean or Russellian analyses
> presupposes a completed infinity.
>
> And, that includes references to
> infinity via potential infinity.
Lovely!
--
|
|
|
|
